Sir – One of the principal aims of a Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl. In the case of Oxford it has succeeded all too well.

 

The combination of a tight Green Belt and a buoyant economy has resulted in the most unaffordable housing in the country, and crowded living conditions for many residents.

 

This cannot have been what the framers of the Green Belt intended when drawing up its present boundaries half a century ago. Taking the other aims of a Green Belt in turn, it is clearly possible to review it and find a limited number of sites for sustainable housing development which: do not merge existing settlements; are not areas of high landscape value; and do not affect the setting and character of historic Oxford.

 

In the case of the fifth aim of a Green Belt — to encourage regeneration through the recycling of land — this has probably gone as far as it can in Oxford without altering the character of the city through the wide-scale replacement of houses with flats.

 

Opponents of a review seek to frighten us with the prospect that any change in the Green Belt boundaries will make what remains (by far the greater part) impossible to defend against ‘rampaging’ developers.

 

They show remarkably little faith in the planning system that has so far defended the Green Belt.

 

If a review is carried out on the basis that there will not be another one before 2050 the (slightly amended) Green Belt would be safe for another generation.

 

There is the alternative of suppressing the city’s economic potential, and coping with such population growth as does occur through increasing densities in Oxford and permitting development outside the Green Belt: the proposals for 1,500 commuter homes on the outskirts of Woodstock showing what we can expect under this scenario.

 

Henry Brougham, Kidlington